Hello Matt,
Matt: I agree completely about calls for explanation. I'm not attempting to judge the particulars of the conversation, but taking a right turn and judging a particular style conversations sometimes come packaged in, i.e. the rhetoric used to pursue positions. I think you've shown that this particular kind of rhetoric is incidental to your position, as it sometimes is in others (which is what I would say of my least favorite passages of Pirsig, for instance). However, this kind of Platonic rhetoric is part and parcel of some people's positions--like Plato's (like when he distinguishes rhetoric from dialectic). And in the case of Bo, I tend to think the rhetoric is tied into his position on Pirsig, which makes him the Plato to Pirsig's Socrates (which is why he thinks Pirsig was wrong at the crucial moment, because Socrates was a Sophist). Ron: Ahh, I get what you mean now. Yes, this is the type of forum we are in And we do seem to have to force our conversations into a particular mold In order to derive a traditional feeling of meaning from them. The problem is when Platonic style is sure that it does not rely On a bit of rhetoric in dialectical truth finding when indeed it does. I think if we must draw on convention, it makes sense to follow in the Continental style of pragmatic usefulness as a criteria of successful concepts and this was my rhetorical aim. Not so much the Platonic method of establishing a "truth". Which to coin a phrase, does not have any cash value without use. Matt: My feeling about deep issues in Pirsig interpretation and philosophy is that at some point, the level of articulation needed moves beyond what the MD is capable of handling. In other words, I'm suggesting that the discussion group format is too small to handle the deep fight/arguments that would be needed to move the conversation forward. I take that to be the serious issue involved. Ron; Not sure how you mean too small. I think if we can be clear on a Particular paradigm of a discussion as you stated then it would decrease The gumption traps. I question if the format is too small but rather The participants capacity of willingness to establish a criteria And paradigm before getting so involved. That way when one participant wants to take the conversation to A different paradigm, it will not conflict in meaning and cause a gumption Trap in the conversation. The way we shifted per your request, to a meta-level paradigm of looking at The structure and devices of argument making in general terms. Some would Charge the gods eye fallacy, but as long as we are aware that these are devices to share concepts, then there is no fallacy in my View other than taking one particular paradigm above all others as a universal measure of "truth". Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
